Fighting a Second Falklands War

[Todjaeger]

What the hell are you carping on about?

I intentionally did not go into any detail about how Argentina would launch a 'surprise' attack because it had nothing to do with the focus of my post. Now you are crediting me with all sorts of ridiculous opinions and motivations.

Now if you would like to discuss something rationally do everyone the favour of displaying a certain about of intellectual flexibility and address my post for what it actually says - how Argentina could avoid having to fight off another Operation Corporate by ethnically cleansing the Falklands of its residents.

I would imagine part of the issue has to do with what much of the thread has discussed so far. Namely whether Argentina has the capability now or in the near future, to successfully invade the Falklands like it did in 1982. With the general concensus being that Argentina is not currently in a position to do so, and that concerted rebuilding efforts by Argentina are likely to be noticed by the British and/or allies in plenty of time for the UK to counter them... Therefore there is obviously going to be some concern or curiousity on the part of posters as to how Argentina could gain control of the Falklands.

If, however the premise for your discussion is that Argentina has already gained control of the Falklands and is acting to maintain that control in the face of a British response, the situation becomes quite different.

As for the idea that Argentina would ethnically cleanse the Falklands, even using a non-lethal/non-violent forced movement... I see two principal problems with that, neither of which has to do with Argentina's capability to actually carry out the effort, rather it has to deal with the reactions the effort will bring out. Rather the two problems are more in the realm of diplomatic/legal/political issues. The first is that, particularly of late, Western powers have taken efforts at ethnic cleansing by various groups rather badly. For Argentina to start efforts to that end, particularly to British citizens (subjects?), I could see that situation exploding in Argentina's hands. The second part is that AFAIK, Argentina officially recognizes those very same residents of the Falklands as citizens of Argentina as well. For Argentina to detain and relocate its citizens like that, and/or engage in a forced repatriation, IMV would likely cause some within Argentina to recall conditions under the military junta when numbers of Argentinian citizens 'disappeared'.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As for the idea that Argentina would ethnically cleanse the Falklands, even using a non-lethal/non-violent forced movement... I see two principal problems with that, neither of which has to do with Argentina's capability to actually carry out the effort, rather it has to deal with the reactions the effort will bring out. Rather the two problems are more in the realm of diplomatic/legal/political issues. The first is that, particularly of late, Western powers have taken efforts at ethnic cleansing by various groups rather badly. For Argentina to start efforts to that end, particularly to British citizens (subjects?), I could see that situation exploding in Argentina's hands. The second part is that AFAIK, Argentina officially recognizes those very same residents of the Falklands as citizens of Argentina as well. For Argentina to detain and relocate its citizens like that, and/or engage in a forced repatriation, IMV would likely cause some within Argentina to recall conditions under the military junta when numbers of Argentinian citizens 'disappeared'.

Thankyou for an actual reasoned response to what I had to say...

I guess the difference from a Bosnia and a Falklands 'ethnic' cleanse would be the method (non violent vs medieval) and the reasoning. Argentina would have to change their stance on the Falklands population from potential citizens to squatters. They could claim their actions are similar to Israel's in the 2005 Gaza evacuation with the forced removal of the Israeli settlers. Once there are no British subjects in the Falklands the entire dynamic is changed.

 

[riksavage]

The Argentines claim to the 'Malvenas' is weak at best. Argentina only claimed legal right after 1817 following independence from Spain (original occupiers). The United Kingdom has occupied the Island since 1833 following the destruction of the then tinny Argentine settlement by an American sloop. So it's extremely difficult for anyone, including the UN to mediate outstanding claims as was witnessed in 82.

Now your scenario of bringing in Military Police units, following a surprise attack, to remove the local population does not take into consideration current realities, for one what has happened to the resident UK Garrison?

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...AI/BritishForcesSouthAtlanticIslandsbfsai.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...tions/2YorksFromAfghanistanToTheFalklands.htm
http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/opsfalklands.cfm

You have made assumptions that hostilities will be over pretty quickly, considering the UK's reinforcement doctrine this must have occurred within 24-48 hours.

What happens if the 3000 odd population refuse to leave their homes (throughout Stanley and remote areas on West Falklands)?

What happens if the resident volunteer force goes to ground and conducts asymmetric warfare - will the wider world look on them as terrorists or freedom fighters?

What happens if foreign tourists (US / European) are injured or killed by Argentine military / police personnel (poor historical human rights record)?

Your scenario is so implausible because it is full of unrealistic assumptions. We all enjoy taking part in such forums, but they must be based on a degree of fact not fiction.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Now your scenario of bringing in Military Police units, following a surprise attack, to remove the local population does not take into consideration current realities, for one what has happened to the resident UK Garrison?

Mod edit: Text deleted.

The British Garrison is incapable of any kind of defence in depth. It is almost entirely based around the Mount Pleasant airfield. The 'surprise attack' scenario would imply that the Argentinians are able to secure the airfield quickly and as such emasculate the garrison. Those elements that manage to escape the surprise capture of the airfield are cut of from supplies and support and effectively useless and would probably be instructed to surrender. Without Mount Pleasant there is no rapid reinforcement from air.

What happens if the resident volunteer force goes to ground and conducts asymmetric warfare - will the wider world look on them as terrorists or freedom fighters?

Considering how the FIDF conducted itself in the first invasion this is very unlikely. While there may be remnant British forces in small teams across the islands they are effectively meaningless as the nature of the terrain does not allow for mobile insurgency. Also the urban masses are so small they can be easily controlled.

What happens if the 3000 odd population refuse to leave their homes (throughout Stanley and remote areas on West Falklands)?

What happens if foreign tourists (US / European) are injured or killed by Argentine military / police personnel (poor historical human rights record)?

Well that is pretty obviously why the MP force would be equipped and trained to evacuate the population without their consent without causing casualties. Which was the whole point of my original post.

The IDF was able to evict 4,500 Israeli settlers from the Gaza strip in far more trying circumstances than would be faced in a similar operation in the Falklands.

Your scenario is so implausible because it is full of unrealistic assumptions. We all enjoy taking part in such forums, but they must be based on a degree of fact not fiction.

Mod edit: Text deleted.

 

[Cooch]

I don't care about how Argentina would launch a surprise attack, it has nothing to do with my contribution....... However my whole point is how Argentina could avoid having to fight to hold onto the islands.

.

With respect, I'd like to make two points.

The first is that the Falklands War of 1982, includes the period starting at the commencement of the Argentinian invasion. Not merely the latter phase, during which the British recaptured the island. As the original post did not limit his discussion to the retaking of the islands by the British, the discussion of how they would very probably avoid losing them in the first place, is entirely appropriate.

The second is that your scenario for refighting this second phase is significantly affected by how the Argentinians undertake the first phase. Therefore it seems unreasonable, to me, to ignore the context created by the methods used by the Argentinians to carry out their hypothetical invasion.

Please recall that I invited you to reply in the light of "the discussion already posted on this thread."

Even limiting ourselves arbitrarily to the phase of the war which you do appear willing to discuss, you make an assumption regarding the emotional reaction and motivation of the British, without addressing the implications of the following variables.
(1) The Argentinians undertaking an act of war while professing peace.
(2) The deaths of British soldiers and civillians .
(3) The reasonable British perception that the Argentinians have acted aggressively, unreasonably, and unjustly.

I do not believe that anyone on this forum deserves to be called " a bunch of idiots banging drums", for raising these questions.

Peter

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Therefore it seems unreasonable, to me, to ignore the context created by the methods used by the Argentinians to carry out their hypothetical invasion.

What nonsense. Would you demand that someone who had posted about how the Argentinian Mirages would go in ATA against British Tornadoes to also include an opinion or data about the land and sea battle?

I just made a contribution about how the Argentinians could have a phase 2 after a surprise attack to ensure their wouldn't have to fight to keep the islands. Perfectly reasonable but it was meet with howls of indignation by a pack of flame baiters/trolls/oppositionists and I'm going to hold you too it.

I do not believe that anyone on this forum deserves to be called " a bunch of idiots banging drums", for raising these questions.

You got what you deserve. I point to your three beat "You've presented no evidence... You've presented no evidence... You've presented no evidence" commentary in which you ask me to provide data that is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

Now would you like to frame a post about something else to do with a Falklands Redux scenario or would you like to make a reasonable response to my "Malvinas Evacuation" scenario? Just how would the British Government respond to having 3,000 Kelpers arriving on charted flights from Brazil? With no facts on the ground and thousands of Argentinian civilians being flown into the Malvinas every day, what can they do?

 

[citizen578]

Is this guy for cereal?

At first I couldn't tell if he was joking or not!

 

[John Sansom]

Abraham Gubler's contention that a combination of a "surprise" assault, Argentinian military police, psyop specialists, and concentrated air transport super-efforts to deal with Falkland residents ignores a whole bunch of realities.

The first, of course, is the "surprise" element in the equation; an unlikely factor at best. The next is the islanders themselves, who are unliklely to greet their own round-up and subsequent transportation with a co-operative attitude. Following quickly on the heels of these two is the strong likelihood that Argentina might well achieve pariah status and subsequent heavy duty economic and military reaction by the world at large. Of course, BA might be able to curry friendship and favour with Venezuela and Cuba, but this may not be a very useful advantage.

However, TOOC (tongue-out-of-cheek) for the moment, the expatriation of the Falklands' British subjects would leave the road wide open for massive British military retaliation, a likelihood which should not be discounted.

Ok, Abe, now tell us your real plan.

 

[citizen578]

Yes you are right and nor will I because it has nothing to do with my contribution to what I thought was a reasonable discussion rather than what its turned out to be: a bunch of idiots banging drums.

I don't care about how Argentina would launch a surprise attack, it has nothing to do with my contribution. Considering the small scale of the British presence in the Falklands it wouldn't need to be a massive affair anyway. However my whole point is how Argentina could avoid having to fight to hold onto the islands.

Idiots, and there seem to be plenty, can carp on about surprise or not but if there is anyone out there willing to have a reasonable discussion about this for the sake of discussion (its all fantasy anyway) then please contribute.

Firstly, on the basis of your recent posts, I think calling anyone an idiot might be a bit of a stretch.

Supposing for a moment that the fantasy ''surprise attack'' on the Falklands is a success.
We then have many dead or injured British servicemen and Falklands Malitia (FIDF), massive destruction to British property, and the ''ethnic cleansing''/forced expulsion of British people.

Do you honestly believe that Argentina would

avoid having to fight to hold onto the islands

in that scenario?

Not only would Argentina be condemned by just about every nation on earth (and have to break its own constitution anyway), but it would precipate a far less limited war than we saw in 1982.

Perhaps you can add some credibility to your posts?

Afterall, you're the 'professional/analyst'!nfloorl:

 

[OPSSG]

Firstly, on the basis of your recent posts, I think calling anyone an idiot might be a bit of a stretch...

Perhaps you can add some credibility to your posts?

Afterall, you're the 'professional/analyst'!nfloorl:

@ citizen578, like you, I am fairly new to this forum. As a member of this forum, I have much to learn.

I have no real interest in getting involved in this discussion, save to read the interesting posts and responses by Todjaeger, Abraham Gubler and other more knowledgeable forum members.

The people you have criticised in this thread have thus far, tried to put forth inherently plausible reasons. Cooch (aka Peter) and you may not agree and that is fine.

I respect Peter for his attempt to put together a reasoned response. Peter is correct, we should not call each other names. I am also guilty of being less than patient with certain less informed forum members, in other threads (for that I am sorry).

Not only would Argentina be condemned by just about every nation on earth (and have to break its own constitution anyway), but it would precipate a far less limited war than we saw in 1982.

I am not sure about international condemnation as a restraint on aggressive state behaviour.

Please also consider reigning in your attempts to mock fellow forum members.

IMHO, implicit in Abraham Gubler's discussion on this topic, is his indirect criticism, of the weakness present in the UK's current deployed forces in the Falklands. This will have an impact on the supposed deterrence effect (to be provided by the forces there). If your current deployment posture has significant weaknesses (or is flawed), then the assumption the UK forces will have the ability to hold onto the air field before reinforcements arrive, is not a good assumption. We can all agree that UK's force projection capabilities has grown since 1982. However, it would be a mistake to consistently underestimate your potential opponent.

citizen578, I was looking at some of your other posts in other threads, they are nice contributions. Let's try to get along and learn from each other OK?

 

[harryriedl]

The British Garrison is incapable of any kind of defence in depth. It is almost entirely based around the Mount Pleasant airfield. The 'surprise attack' scenario would imply that the Argentinians are able to secure the airfield quickly and as such emasculate the garrison. Those elements that manage to escape the surprise capture of the airfield are cut of from supplies and support and effectively useless and would probably be instructed to surrender. Without Mount Pleasant there is no rapid reinforcement from air.



Considering how the FIDF conducted itself in the first invasion this is very unlikely. While there may be remnant British forces in small teams across the islands they are effectively meaningless as the nature of the terrain does not allow for mobile insurgency. Also the urban masses are so small they can be easily controlled.

The main issue I have with this 'suprise attack' is the Argintian assets capable of the suprise attack. They are not of NATO standards and haven't had any combat since 1982. While Mt Pleasants through there is no defence in depth it has a trained combat force with a wide range of capbailites which would noties any attempt at a 'suprise attack'. Which airfieild do you entend for the Argintians to take as there are two large airfields Stantly, Mt Pleasant plus many much smaller airfileds like Gouse Green. with more than one airfield the demands for training and time increse exponentaly and harder to pull off sucessfuly. taking a Mil airbase by suprise is allmost unhered of. Plus Stanly can take a C17 as an alternate it would be a very very tall order to achive that with an army with a lack of training lack of funds and lacking the right equipment.

The FIDF was consdorabliy expanding and training improved after 1982 [its roughtly the size of light inf battalion] so you couldn't discount assymentric conflit as they would belive the UK would come and librate them.

 

[citizen578]

@ OPSSG

errr what?!

I've asked the bloke to provide some credible explanations for his opinion, which are contrary to everything being said by others, and against what every analyst (ironic, I know...) has ever said about the conflict or the ongoing sovereignty issues.

I've not called anyone an idiot, nor have I posted anything, before this morning, which remotely belittled anyone else's opinions. I have, however, devoted several years to studying the Falklands War, and the sovereignty debate.

I agree that it would be nice to have an educated discussion on the subject, which is why I entered a forum supposedly populated by like-minded adults.

Shockingly, I did not expect to be called a ''drum-beating idiot'' on account of my opinions which I have taken the time to reinforce with fact and external sources.

From the moment I read Mr Gublers initial post, I suspected it would derail what has until now been a fairly erudite and sensible assessment.

Again, I would invite him or anyone else to provide an opinion which they can substantiate beyond calling names to a few people they have never met and know nothing about.

Perhaps we can get back to the discussion?

regards

 

[citizen578]

I would agree that a surprise attack of anything more than a harrassing force would be almost impossible. The only way to get people onto those Islands without it being known about is by submarine. The Argentinians have actually done this since 1982, with a special forces landing at Fox Bay.

However, this would provide (on the basis of Arg's 3 SSKs) a maximum of about 30 troops. These would be facing a force of several thousand (if we are to include all personnel, or about 500 infantry on an 'ordinary day'). In reality, only one or two (depending on which sources you use) of Argentina's submarines are actually operational.

It takes only a brief look at Argentina's tattered air-transport assets to realise that they are not capable of the job, especially not in the face of F3s and Rapiers. In reality, not even a raid similar to the Israeli raid on Entebbe is achievable.

I'm pretty sure that the RAF Regt and Royal Artillery would have something to say about ''no defence in depth''!
Not only is there the SAM systems and ground defence forces, but there is also a sophisticated surveillance network, several warships, 4x F3s, and the FIDF to contend with.
As defence of an archipeligo with 3000 people and 650 000 sheep goes... that's pretty deep.

 

[Cooch]

I just made a contribution about how the Argentinians could have a phase 2 after a surprise attack to ensure their wouldn't have to fight to keep the islands. Perfectly reasonable but it was meet with howls of indignation by a pack of fools and I'm going to hold you too it.

No, Sir, you have not.
You have jumped into the middle of an ongoing discussion with a claim that a succesful surprise attack by the Argentinians is probable,,,, thereby ignoring the considerable body of evidence which has already been presented to the contrary.

Now would you like to frame a post about something else to do with a Falklands Redux scenario or would you like to make a reasonable response to my "Malvinas Evacuation" scenario? Just how would the British Government respond to having 3,000 Kelpers arriving on charted flights from Brazil? With no facts on the ground and thousands of Argentinian civilians being flown into the Malvinas every day, what can they do?

OK.
Part of your original response was the assumption that - in such an evacuation situation - the British would lack the motivation to retake the islands. You have refused to address the reasons presented as to why the British might be very highly motivated indeed, even when presented with a fait accompli. A canny political leadership would use the spectacle of the Falklanders disembarking to generate a great deal of anger. It is certain that having their citizens - those that are still alive, anyway - no longer held as Argentinian hostages does free their hands WRT a military response.

If it were me, a part of my initial response would be to deploy a proportion of my submarine fleet, with the intention of destroying a significant proportion of the Argentinian navy and - via Tomahawks - Argentian airbases and military infrastructure. My estimation (and I do not pretend to be an expert) is that this is a relatively low-risk move on my part, as I believe that my technology in this area is significantly in advance of that of my opponent.

My public justification for this is that I'm leading up to the retaking of my territory that has been criminally attacked in defiance of international law and "just war" criteria, resulting in the deaths of my citizens.
My private rationale is that - even if further analysis causes me to decide that military invasion is no longer feasible - I am demonstrating to my opponent that his actions are not a cheap and easy solution.... and that he had better come to the negotiating table right now. He is not in a position where he can simply sit on his ill-gotten gains and poke his tongue out at me.

Gambling on a quick, easy and cheap victory was what the Argentinian leadership did first time around. They were wrong then, and the British would be in a position to make them pay a substantial price in this scenarion, too.

IMHO............. Peter

 

[Cooch]

howls of indignation by a pack of fools

Permit me to point out that characterising those who disagree with you - and present evidence toi back their opinion - in this manner, is not consistent with the DT Forum rules.

Rule 7
Do not disrespect anyone on this board-whether you disagree with them or agree with them.. It is suggested that you keep your cool and show restraint when discussing important defence matters.

Peter

 

[Tankcrewman2008]

A surprise attack? Wasn't it a surprise in 1982 with the Argentine special forces. I see no surprise attack on the falklands the fact that any vessel coming from Argentina or Chile must have permission and will be tracked/escorted to shore also the ever present nuclear sub patrolling the area, Remember the Falklands still have a no fly zone for Argentine aircraft. I had the benefit of going to falklands very cold place which i gather adds to its Natural defense.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The first, of course, is the "surprise" element in the equation; an unlikely factor at best. The next is the islanders themselves, who are unliklely to greet their own round-up and subsequent transportation with a co-operative attitude.

Of course! That's the whole point about having a trained and equipped unit to conduct the round-up. The physical situation on the Falklands is such that the locals can't just run off and hide in a nearby forest. Their co-operation is not required. They are being rounded up and deported, much like the IDF did to the Israeli Gaza settlers.

Following quickly on the heels of these two is the strong likelihood that Argentina might well achieve pariah status and subsequent heavy duty economic and military reaction by the world at large. Of course, BA might be able to curry friendship and favour with Venezuela and Cuba, but this may not be a very useful advantage.

Not quite. Argentina suffered immensely from their initial invasion of the Falklands but were not pariahed. Russia invaded Georgia and were not pariahed. Israel has occupied the West bank for 40 years (admittedly trying to get rid of it the last 10 or so) and were not pariahed.

Any Argentinian military action over the Falklands would result in international relations blow back. No matter what sort. An operation designed to "evict squatters" rather than forcibly convert 3,000 people into Argentinians is less likely to cause international uproar. Once the evacuation is complete it is a lot harder to be upset about refugees safe in the UK than people under occupation.

However, TOOC (tongue-out-of-cheek) for the moment, the expatriation of the Falklands' British subjects would leave the road wide open for massive British military retaliation, a likelihood which should not be discounted.

And what retaliation would that be? What military capability does the UK have to launch at a Britisher-free Malvinas or at Argentina proper?

Obviously I've discovered the British equivalent of calling the Su-27 a piece of junk on an Indian military board. However in amongst the highly personal responses - I didn't know so many Falklanders visited this board - there is some good coming from these responses.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The main issue I have with this 'suprise attack' is the Argintian assets capable of the suprise attack. They are not of NATO standards and haven't had any combat since 1982. While Mt Pleasants through there is no defence in depth it has a trained combat force with a wide range of capbailites which would noties any attempt at a 'suprise attack'. Which airfieild do you entend for the Argintians to take as there are two large airfields Stantly, Mt Pleasant plus many much smaller airfileds like Gouse Green. with more than one airfield the demands for training and time increse exponentaly and harder to pull off sucessfuly. taking a Mil airbase by suprise is allmost unhered of. Plus Stanly can take a C17 as an alternate it would be a very very tall order to achive that with an army with a lack of training lack of funds and lacking the right equipment.

The British garrison is almost entirely located at Mount Pleasant. It would be the focus of any attack to subdue the garrison. Stanley airfield can be easily denied to any incoming relief flight by a platoon of infantry and driving some local vehicles onto it. The British will not fly in a relief force unless they have a secure airfield. Flying all the way to the Falklands is not the stuff of Operation Market Gardens.

I didn't go into much details about the surprise attack because it was not what I was trying to offer to this discussion. However the attempts to discredit myself and the initial argument (the Malvinas Evacuation scenario) by a range of personally/politically motivated posters means I must.

Mount Pleasant is not like a normal air base in western Europe or the MEAO. The Falklands is a desolate place and in mid winter the primarily role of the air base is protecting its inhabitants from the environment. Because the British force is so small - an infantry company for ground security - it lacks the capability to provide a normal defence in depth. This is what allows military forces to avoid coup de main style attacks. While an initial surprise attack is unlikely to achieve a Hollywood style everyone knocked out by "sleeping gas" type effect it would knock out the base (no air in and out) and severally disrupt the British forces that would be mopped up by follow up forces.

The primary early warning capability for the British is intelligence gathering (SIGINT) and satellite surveillance. Both can be avoided by a small battalion/regiment style special forces attack avoiding all radio comms and the satellite orbits. This force could be helo deployed under the very limited radar coverage of the British defences and ground assault Mount Pleasant. Follow on forces in the form of a paratrooper brigade can be airdropped nearby the base to complete the mopping up. This would probably require a few more helos, airlifters, etc to be acquired by the Argentinians but its not extreme stuff.

The FIDF was consdorabliy expanding and training improved after 1982 [its roughtly the size of light inf battalion] so you couldn't discount assymentric conflit as they would belive the UK would come and librate them.

The FIDF is only a light infantry company not a battalion. Any attempt at insurgency is severally hampered by the terrain (a point I've mentioned before). There is no cover in the Falklands and the environment is very tough. Also the urban areas are far too small to hide in.

In the Falklands War the FIDF basically surrendered before they saw a shot in anger. To expect them to be anything other than a distraction is unreasonable.

 

[swerve]

Both can be avoided by a small battalion/regiment style special forces attack avoiding all radio comms and the satellite orbits. This force could be helo deployed under the very limited radar coverage of the British defences and ground assault Mount Pleasant. Follow on forces in the form of a paratrooper brigade can be airdropped nearby the base to complete the mopping up. This would probably require a few more helos, airlifters, etc to be acquired by the Argentinians but its not extreme stuff..

It is very extreme stuff, because the acquisition of such equipment would set alarm bells ringing all over the place. You're talking about multiples of Argentinas air transport & helicopter fleets. BTW, has anyone ever attempted a helicopter assault by a battalion over several hundred km, mostly sea?

Speaking of which, I'm not at all sure that a fleet of helicopters approaching over the sea would ever be "under the radar". They'd not exactly have a small RCS, even against the sea. Byron Heights and/or Mount Alice should pick 'em up easily, & give enough warning for the Tornados - or Typhoons in a couple of years - to get some target practice. Unless, of course, someone landed from a sub, & destroyed the radars, which would itself ring alarm bells, or successfully attacked them with missiles - ditto.

Then there is the question of training & readiness.

Your scenario requires the resources of a different country, one far more heavily armed than Argentina, & also a lot of luck on the part of the attackers, to be able to get ashore alive.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Your scenario requires the resources of a different country, one far more heavily armed than Argentina, & also a lot of luck on the part of the attackers, to be able to get ashore alive.

My scenario (Malvinas Evacuation) actually doesn't require a surprise attack. It could be a flat out conventional all or nothing amphibious assault. The whole point of it was what Argentina could do to ensure the Brits would not counter attack. Mod edit: Text deleted. Which is a shame considering that was the very intent of this thread.

As to the surprise scenario the acquisition of improved air transport is a common thing for many countries. 12 new C-130Js and 12 CH-47Fs are hardly going to set the world on fire and result in the UK basing a battalion on the Falklands in the current environment. Especially if Argentina said they were acquiring the improved transport fleet to support a battalion deployment to Afghanistan.

PS The Falklands radars have horizons of about 80km against a seaskimming target providing 20 minutes warning against a helicopter or 5 minutes against a strike aircraft.